IMO, a good sequel doesnt have to change too much to be good, and is usually close enough to be called “more of the same.”.
A good sequel is good because of its similarities to the first. Otherwise you end up with Zelda 2, which is widely regarded as the worst of the Zelda games because it changed so much (outside of a small but very vocal minority that liked it). Many movie sequels also try to change too much and end up suffering because of it. Return to Oz was an interesting movie, but I wouldn’t ever call it as good as the original. Aliens and Terminator 2 are both similar enough to their respective originals while still having minor tweaks that led to a good follow up.
So in the sense of a sequel, Overwatch 2 isn’t the worst, but I think it changed too much from the original and suffers because of it. And Blizzards decision to overwrite the original obviously plays a big part in many people’s dislike of the game.
It should be more of the same, but not “exactly the same or a little worse,” like OW2 is to OW1. It’s the EXACT same game, but with fewer features.
Final Fantasy is a decent example. They’re all more of the same gameplay, while having totally different and non-connected worlds/stories/characters (up until 10-2’s release, anyway).
Well I suppose thats kinda my point. The headline here is really bad. I understand what they are trying to get at, but they chose to word it pretty poorly.
IMO, a good sequel doesnt have to change too much to be good, and is usually close enough to be called “more of the same.”.
A good sequel is good because of its similarities to the first. Otherwise you end up with Zelda 2, which is widely regarded as the worst of the Zelda games because it changed so much (outside of a small but very vocal minority that liked it). Many movie sequels also try to change too much and end up suffering because of it. Return to Oz was an interesting movie, but I wouldn’t ever call it as good as the original. Aliens and Terminator 2 are both similar enough to their respective originals while still having minor tweaks that led to a good follow up.
So in the sense of a sequel, Overwatch 2 isn’t the worst, but I think it changed too much from the original and suffers because of it. And Blizzards decision to overwrite the original obviously plays a big part in many people’s dislike of the game.
It should be more of the same, but not “exactly the same or a little worse,” like OW2 is to OW1. It’s the EXACT same game, but with fewer features.
Final Fantasy is a decent example. They’re all more of the same gameplay, while having totally different and non-connected worlds/stories/characters (up until 10-2’s release, anyway).
Well I suppose thats kinda my point. The headline here is really bad. I understand what they are trying to get at, but they chose to word it pretty poorly.